South Texas Shooting in a church
Nov 7, 2017 15:49:30 #
wilpharm wrote:
Bullshit...anyone can purchase a AR-15....does not have to be legal...
Go back to my post. EWForbess claimed that if gun laws had been enforced strictly the guy who shot the shooter would not have been able to purchase his gun. I'm just saying that it had been purchased legally.
Nov 7, 2017 16:09:15 #
SteveR wrote:
Go back to my post. EWForbess claimed that if gun laws had been enforced strictly the guy who shot the shooter would not have been able to purchase his gun. I'm just saying that it had been purchased legally.
The man who shot the shooter was a NRA instructor. He was obviously a good shot. I'm going to guess he was a gun expert who followed all gun laws to the T.
Nov 7, 2017 17:05:22 #
SteveR wrote:
Go back to my post. EWForbess claimed that if gun laws had been enforced strictly the guy who shot the shooter would not have been able to purchase his gun. I'm just saying that it had been purchased legally.
Im saying that gun laws make no difference to crazies or criminals!!!!
Nov 7, 2017 17:24:19 #
wilpharm wrote:
Im saying that gun laws make no difference to crazies or criminals!!!!
My statement, however, was a reply and should be taken in context. Your statement is true, but we also but individuals in jail for breaking those laws.
Nov 7, 2017 17:38:31 #
dirtpusher wrote:
Can you stop home burgurlies
Back in the 50's & 60's and even the 70's Burglary suspects went to jail and stayed there, cutting down on burglary's substantially.
No, you won't stop burglary's from occurring, but when you run out of burglars, caused their in jail, you cut down occurrences.
And new burglars aren't as damaging as seasoned burglars. AND when they go to jail and stay there, which doesn't happen anymore, recidivism goes away.
If the US would get tough on crime, crime would almost go away, instead of recycling.
Nov 7, 2017 18:00:23 #
ewforbess
Loc: San Antonio, TX
SteveR wrote:
Where are you getting this? I'm sure he had purchased his legally.
I agree 100%. My point was directed at gun-grabbing or restricting what those so inclined would do because the citizen used an AR (read Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle...)
Sorry for the confusion.
Nov 7, 2017 20:51:46 #
GeorgeH wrote:
All states require a license to operate a motor vehicle, and that such vehicle be registered. What's the difference? Oh yes, that pesky Second Amendment, written in the late 18th Century....
ONLY if you operate that motor vehicle on public roads. On private land neither a liscence or insurance or registration is required.
Nov 8, 2017 11:02:41 #
Nov 8, 2017 15:02:04 #
mwalsh wrote:
Here's a thought:
Walsh, that's a very interesting chart. Is there an article with reference to accompany it?
Nov 8, 2017 15:15:41 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
idaholover wrote:
In rereading this post of yours, I can't help but think, that is exactly what the church shooter must have been thinking. You are a real peach, ya know that?
Give me a break. Have you ever heard of someone being confiscated? Exactly who are you claiming the shooter confiscated?
Nov 8, 2017 15:19:39 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
JohnSwanda wrote:
He was dishonorably discharged for domestic violence, probably a good category to be barred from owning guns.
He was not dishonorably discharged. The fact that he did over a year might bar him. The domestic violence might bar him. A bad conduct discharge by and of itself doesn't bar one from owning a gun.
Nov 8, 2017 15:33:14 #
thom w wrote:
He was not dishonorably discharged. The fact that he did over a year might bar him. The domestic violence might bar him. A bad conduct discharge by and of itself doesn't bar one from owning a gun.
His military conviction was the equivalent of a felony. That, in and of itself, would have been sufficient to have barred him from legally owning a gun.
Nov 8, 2017 15:40:09 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
SteveR wrote:
His military conviction was the equivalent of a felony. That, in and of itself, would have been sufficient to have barred him from legally owning a gun.
I think that's where my "his doing over a year might bar him" statement comes in. The Bad Conduct Discharge by and of itself does not bar him. It is his length of his sentence that makes it equivalent to a felony. A dishonorable would have barred him regardless of the reason for it.
Nov 8, 2017 15:54:27 #
thom w wrote:
I think that's where my "his doing over a year might bar him" statement comes in. The Bad Conduct Discharge by and of itself does not bar him. It is his length of his sentence that makes it equivalent to a felony. A dishonorable would have barred him regardless of the reason for it.
it is also that the charge was for domestic abuse and violence. That should have barred him from owning a gun.
Nov 8, 2017 16:28:01 #
thom w wrote:
I think that's where my "his doing over a year might bar him" statement comes in. The Bad Conduct Discharge by and of itself does not bar him. It is his length of his sentence that makes it equivalent to a felony. A dishonorable would have barred him regardless of the reason for it.
It's not the length of the sentence. You can get a year for a misdemeanor. It's the type of charge.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.